home

Obama's Speech: Did It Save Him?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:54:00 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Tim Hames of the TimesOnLine examines Obama's speech and assesses its impact. He thought the speech was outstanding and moving. He thinks it will be remembered in a positive, ground-breaking way for years to come.

That said, what effect will it have on the presidential race?

Was the speech a turning point? No. Will the issue of the Rev Jeremiah Wright and his views on race be a burden to Barack Obama all the way to election day? Yes.

The Illinois senator demonstrated yet again his eloquence in his address in Philadelphia on Tuesday. The fundamental question about his candidacy, however, is whether a man who would be the least experienced president of the United States since Jimmy Carter has the judgment to serve in the Oval Office. That is the doubt that Hillary Clinton exploited in the Ohio and Texas primaries and it is the theme that SenatorJohn McCain will hammer home if Obama is his opponent for the White House.

More...

So Obama cannot win if race is a predominant issue in this election. Wright was a special embarrassment because he had been so close to the Obama family and what he said had been captured by television and could be replayed endlessly to a less than impressed white audience.

....It has long been clear that the senator can be the first black president only if he is not seen as a black candidate.....Obama has to be above race, not enmeshed in it. His implicit argument that by electing him Americans would somehow have cleansed themselves of past distrust will not wash. That is why the chances are that this is not the last time that the senator will find himself having to confront the matter of race in this election.

Hames says this worries the Democratic party establishment:

This is a year when it should be relatively easy for them to reclaim the Oval Office, yet there are nagging doubts about whether Obama, if nominated, could carry states such as Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania, which will determine the outcome of this battle. Obama's words will undoubtedly impress those who take the trouble to listen to him. Whether they will work with those who are watching rather than listening is far more debatable.

Update: Comments over 200, this thread is now closed.

< SUSA Polls on Electability | Obama Is The Obstacle To A MI Revote >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Speech: Did It Save Him? | 194 comments (194 topical)
    the speech itself (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:21:13 AM EST
    isn't going to have any effect because anyone who is bothered by Reverend Wright isn't going to change his mind based upon anything that Barack Obama has said.

    At best, it might diminish the amount of play Wright's sermons gets on main stream media which might be a benefit but it's possibly too late.

    The 'nagging doubts' of course is the issue and I suppose that the upcoming races have to somehow provide a gauge of the impact because it's abundantly clear what the ads of the various 527's will be come the general election if Obama is the candidate.

    Obama bothers me, not Wright (5.00 / 10) (#41)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:45:44 AM EST
    What does bother me is Obama's failure to live up to  the principles he himself espouses in the speech in his campaign tactics. There's a curious, or maybe not so curious, passivity that creeps into his language when he gets down to cases in the campaign.

    The press is scouring the exit polls to divide us?
    Well, "the press" was Obama surrogates like Sullivan and Eugene Robinson who rushed to blame the Bradley Effect (i.e., racism) on Obama's loss in NH, and without evidence.

    "We" "can dismiss" Geraldine Ferraro as harboring "some deep-seated racial bias"? Yeah, except it turns out that "we" is Axelrod, Obama's own campaign manager.

    "We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card"? Yeah, like Obama himself did, when he blamed the Hillary campaign for the photograph of him in "Muslim" garb (when Kevin Drum admits he got suckered by Drudge on it).

    And let's not even get into the orchestrated charges of the racism that the Obama campaign used to take down Clinton (here Million Man March).

    I think Ashley deserves a President whose words and actions match. You can't decry racism on the one hand, no matter how eloquently, and then use charges of racism of smear your political opponents on the other. (Though maybe Obama can, given the lack of scrutiny he gets from our famously free press.) No doubt one effect of "The Speech" will be to draw a decorous veil over how the Obama campaign has been having it both ways on this issue.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly correct. Obama has (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:47:56 AM EST
    run a very underhanded campaign, pitching the most hateful attacks on Hillary while being seen as the "above the fray" candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Again, I (none / 0) (#169)
    by zfran on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:57:23 AM EST
    believe this goes to judgement. He has shown his is not the best. He's a politician first it seems and plays the game (the race card when necessary). If he wants the public to be adults about race, then he should take responsibility, like an adult, for his troubling judgement. Quit blaming everyone else!!!

    [ Parent ]
    The speech...the speech...sigh... (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:36:01 AM EST
    I maintain my position that it was the equivalent of the person who started the fire showing up with the fire truck and the hose and wanting credit for trying to put it out.

    It was as political a speech as any I have heard, delivered via teleprompter and re-using material from older speeches.  He goes to the brink of the cliff with Wright and then pulls back on the theory that Wright is just as important to him as his family.  He uses his grandmother - taking a scenario he wrote about in his book and enlarging it to fit what he wanted to say - as an equalizer.  He says, in effect, that what Wright said - repeatedly - was no worse than his grandmother being afraid because a beggar, who happened to be black - approached her for money at the bus stop, wasn't satisfied with what she gave him, and she thought he might have attacked her if the bus had not arrived in the nick of time.  Yes, that was the genesis of the remarks he made about his grandmother, although to hear him tell it, the woman was just as bad as Wright.  I wonder, if his grandmother had been black, would she have been just as afraid of the black man begging for money?  Yes, audacity is the word that comes to mind, but not in a good way.

    He does the same thing with Ferraro - he wants us to think that what she said was on the same level with Wright's sermons.  And he want us to think that the race-baiting of the Clinton campaign was just as bad as what Wright said - even thought it was his campaign that conjured up the race-baiting to begin with.  More audacity.

    The disconnect continues...he wants to talk about the economic conditions that keep the black community down, but doesn't want us to see that when he had an opportunity to stand up for his constituents who were living in Tony Rezko housing developments, with no heat in the middle of a Chicago winter, he failed.  

    The speech made me wonder, how many Barack Obamas are there?  Which one of them is the real one?  

    As the old expression goes: don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.  Enough.


    [ Parent ]

    The very defintion of chutzpah (none / 0) (#193)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:21:25 AM EST
    Anne, your fire metaphor makes me think of it:

    Chutzpah is when a man murders his parents, and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan....

    [ Parent ]

    I doubt the speech will change many minds. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by nashville on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:34:44 AM EST
    I stated earlier that I thought it was inspirational. He is a gifted speaker.  When he came to this part, "We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias," however, I decided it was nothing more than just politics.  I felt this was a back-handed slap at Clinton for dismissing Ferraro when the whole issue had been fanned by his campaign.

    A less serious point :)  Did anyone elso get reminded of the Daily Show skit of "my father's a goat-ball licker" when he said "I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas?" Whenever anyone starts talking about the adverse/different circumstances from which they have arisen that skit just always comes to my mind.  No matter their political preference or if their my favorite candidate, I just think that skit was hilarious and I alwys think of it!

    Also many people have mentioned 527 and the Wright issue.  If the Republicans have enough money, they will send a DVD of it to every household in America!  The speech will not put that issue to rest because he is still a money-giving member to that church and has now refulsed publicly to disavow the Rev.  That may be laudable in the real world, but this is after all politics.

    [ Parent ]

    Effect of the speech (none / 0) (#15)
    by PennProgressive on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:47:42 AM EST
    Although much of MSM is praising the speech as Groundbreaking or exceptional, it is doubtful whether it will change the minds of the voters. Obama told Anderson Cooper that those who were not pllannning to vote for him, will not but those who support him will continue to do so. It will be impportant to see what happens in the  remaining 10 states--particularly in NC, KY and IN. I don't think that here in PA the wright  issue  or the speech will be that  important. Here in PA " It  is the economy stupid."

    [ Parent ]
    The polls are showing the effect of (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:27:15 AM EST
    Wright on Obama support.  All the hoopla about the Indpendents and Republicans Obama was pulling to his camp and adding to his numbers, now seem to be jumping ship.  These voters are the ones he was banking on for his nomination and now they seem not so inclined after all. I hope the superdelegates are watching this carefully.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's speech and the pledged delegates (none / 0) (#130)
    by suskin on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:17:44 AM EST
    Obama had the opportunity to be the leader he says he is; the unifier.  He could have and should have gotten up before the American people and said - this has to stop.  The Clintons are not racists.  Ferraro is not racist.  They are friends of the AA community.  We need to come together as a party and stop pointing fingers at each other.  But Obama didn't do that.  Instead he repeated his unfounded racist charges.  He solidified the racial divide and then had the audacity to say that because of his race he was uniquely able to heal it.

    It's time to investigate the caucus abuses.  With Pelosi and others disingenuously arguing that the super delegates should follow the pledge delegates, the legitimacy of the pledge delegates should be carefully considered. Anyone who has information regarding caucus irregularities, contact us at the below email addresses.  We will keep your names and personal information confidential if you request us to do so.  

    For Iowa: IowaCaucusIrregularities@gmail.com
    For Washington: WashingtonCaucusIrregularities@gmail.com
    For all other caucuses: DemocraticCaucusIrregularities@gmail.com

    Thank you

    [ Parent ]

    Jeralyn, please no, don't validate this, please (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jcsf on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:32:44 AM EST
    This is what the MSM does every time - EVERY TIME to our candidates -

    Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Gore, Dean, Kerry, Edwards, the smear artists every time, find something to "play" again and again, to come back to, that poisons the democratic candidate.

    This isn't an accident, this isn't happenstance.  It wasn't the fault of Dukakis, or Gore, or Clinton, or Kerry, or Edwards.  

    It's this sensationalistic narrative driven media, working in conjunction with smear.  

    Obama's had an easier time of it that Hillary Clinton, because he doesn't have the history, and he is a more "charismatic" candidate, like Bill Clinton.  And again, that is favored by the narrative press.

    But it's up to us, when we can, to push back against these narratives, and help our candidates, Hillary or Obama, or Edwards, or Gore.  

    This 24/7 focus cannot stand, and we have to stop it, if possible, not agree, or stand passive, or implicitly validate it.

    When Barack Obama (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:14:09 AM EST
    Was asked about the kinds of attacks that you describe above and how Clinton has been the recipient of those attacks in the past he said they were "unfair", but he also said they were there, and that because of those attacks Clinton would be incapable of uniting the country the way he can.

    I would have appreciated it if he could have mustered the conviction to say "Those attacks were wrong," and refrain from trying to twist that situation into a reason why I should vote for him.

    Do you see what I am saying?

    [ Parent ]

    I see what Obama was saying. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:26:23 AM EST
    It's clearer now.

    "It's unfair." shows sympathy with Hillary.

    But he deliberately did NOT take any sides which means that he avoided defending Clinton(reaching out to the ABC folks) and and implying that she was damaged goods.

    Of course, he also set himself up to be less than a sympathetic figure if the media decided to do the same to him.  I admit that I am not feeling all that much sympathy for Obama right now.  Politics on the national stage is a different game than regional politics.  Welcome to the big league!

    [ Parent ]

    He could have won me over (none / 0) (#163)
    by Coral on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:50:31 AM EST
    way back, by defending Hillary in a way that seemed gracious. Instead he seemed petulant, aloof, and begrudging.

    I'd be much more eager to leap to his defense if he had show a similar generosity of spirit in the months leading up to this moment. If he had, I'd be much less eager to see Clinton holding on.

    [ Parent ]

    I hear you, I think (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Rainsong on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:19:53 AM EST

    Its like two wrongs don't make a right.

    Those who live by the sword die by it.
    (Perhaps in hindsight, playing the race card was a double-edged sword that cut both ways?)
    You reap what you sow,
    what goes around, comes around
    poetic justice,
    lots of similar axioms on that theme.

    a Fox news piece I heard earlier on some viewer feedback sort of touched on this. Forgotten who said it, along the lines that many people fear mentioning race because "...if they make a mistake, they will be labelled racist". The response from O'Reilly was "Yes, just ask Gerry Ferraro".  


    [ Parent ]

    Thinking about your comment... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by TN Dem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:21:20 AM EST
    I truly fail to see how not looking at what are extremely likely attacks from Republicans in the GE, and considering them when a race is still ongoing in our search for a nominee is divisive to our party.

    Pretending that these attacks will not happen, or that all will be forgotten will not help us elect a Democratic president in November. We have seen the results of that strategy and it does not stand. Discussing it is the only way to find a solution and combat it, whether that be to continue to defend on candidate based upon what we see, or to take pause and reflect on what will be best for our party and therefore our nation.

    [ Parent ]

    Discuss it, fine... (none / 0) (#33)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:26:19 AM EST
    But discuss how to push back against it.  Discuss how to destroy it.   Promoting it in order to slightly increase your chances of winning the primary doesn't help us at all in November.

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by TN Dem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:33:44 AM EST
    I think that if you believe, as I happen to, that there is no way to push back against this successfully. There is no way that I can see to essentially remove Rev. Wright's statements from the minds of everyday American's who will in all probability, be subjected to a litany of 527 ads pounding the most negative and divisive of his statements through their TV sets for months on end.
    Therefore to take pause and consider who is the most likely to be elected of our candidates is something we as Democrats need to do if we truly believe that our party's leadership is important to our country.

    [ Parent ]
    now you want us to push back? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by english teacher on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:50:01 AM EST
    when all you and your candidate did after new hampshire was accuse the clintons of racism?  it's a good thing this site disallows profanity, because there is a place i would like to tell you to go.  you were all warned about this in real time.  there will be no "pushing back" coming from this clinton supporter to aid obama.  i won't vote for him either, in large part because of his accusations of racism against the clintons and his complicity with the media in furthering that meme.  

    [ Parent ]
    Find one qoute (none / 0) (#62)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:16:39 AM EST
    from Obama accusing anyone of racism.

    [ Parent ]
    Tit for tat. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:02:18 AM EST
    Give me an equivalent Hillary meme that you'll push back against and I'll do the same for Obama.

    They are both Democrats, right?  We should get their backs because either one could be our nominee, right?

    [ Parent ]

    At this moment... (none / 0) (#87)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:37:58 AM EST
    ...I'm currently pushing back against the fact that anyone should care in the slightest where Ms Clinton was on the night of the Monica silliness.  If Whitewater or Travelgate or anything like that comes up, I will push back against it.  

    [ Parent ]
    Headline in Tennessean (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by nashville on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:43:06 AM EST
    on political page- "Hillary Clinton was Home while Bill had affair."  Give me a break!!!!! They, including the Obama campaign have been screaming for these records and because they can't find any "gotch," this is what they lead with.  This makes me sick!

    [ Parent ]
    we should love this (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:45:57 AM EST
    this is the kind of crap that is helping Hillary.


    [ Parent ]
    Who is "we"? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:52:22 AM EST
    I wouldn't say that it is helping Hillary.  But it does point out the media's obsession with ess-ee-ex.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe you're right. (none / 0) (#104)
    by nashville on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:52:34 AM EST
    We can only hope.  After all Tweety did say sympathy is what got her where she is today.  

    [ Parent ]
    I thought it was "The economy, stupid!" (none / 0) (#94)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:45:32 AM EST
    This election is really about Monica?

    Someone better call Rassmussen and SUSA!

    [ Parent ]

    Okay. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:43:14 AM EST
    If anyone implies that the good Reverend and Obama were "more than friends", I will push back against that.

    ;-)  Fair enough?

    [ Parent ]

    HA (none / 0) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:01:53 AM EST
    so many jokes . . .

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't even mention (none / 0) (#132)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:18:41 AM EST
    McClurkin.

    Jesus' General would have a field day!

    [ Parent ]

    What If This Is A Genie That Won't (none / 0) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:51:54 AM EST
    be put back into the bottle?

    Also, what exactly are we to defend?

    That Obama showed good judgement by attending Wright's church for 20 years when Wright is known for the type of rhetoric shown in the videos. I do not believe he did.

    Should the defense be that this type of rhetoric is standard fair and is not only the norm in black churches but it somehow improves relations between the races. I do not believe that.

    Should the defense be that Obama made a speech and that somehow eliminated the fact that Obama supported Wright for 20 years by choosing his church and by his contributions. That defense does not wash with me and I don't think it will wash with others.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#52)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:57:49 AM EST
    Promoting it in order to slightly increase your chances of winning the primary...

    There's been a lot of that going around...

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe you should tell Barack that. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dancing Bear on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:01:07 AM EST
    He seems to bring it up pretty regularly. I guess we, the little people, need to be held to a higher standard than the candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Jeralyn, please no, don't validate this, pleas (1.00 / 2) (#14)
    by wwinfrey on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:45:11 AM EST
    Don't count on it. TL has turned from one of my favorite blogs to a clearinghouse for anti-Obama stories. A couple months ago, when Big Tent Democrat started really getting out of hand, I unsubbed from the RSS feed. Then I started hearing the same comments everywhere: "When did TalkLeft turn from a thoughtful blog about politics and crime into a rabidly pro-Clinton/anti-Obama blog?" I finally came to the site today and it's stunning. I want to say that I cannot believe how short-sighted Hillary's supporters are being, but unfortunately, I can. They take their cues from the top, and Hillary is too concerned with reversing the race to stick up for a fellow Democrat. It's sickening to see fellow Democrats embracing these divisive tactics, and Big Tent Democrat is the worst of the bunch. Ugh.

    [ Parent ]
    Too funny! (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:57:37 AM EST
    I just read this comment, reversed the bias, changed the name of BTD and talkleft to another blogger and another blog....

    And it read just the same.

    My bias is for facts and some semblance of objectivity, that's why I like this place.

    [ Parent ]

    the suggestion (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by facta non verba on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:14:19 AM EST
    that we have to line up behind Obama is laughable.

    BTD actually supports Obama and Jeralyn has stated on national TV that she will vote support the Democratic candidate. I won't, I will vote for Clinton but not Obama. And I was an Edwards supporter to begin with. I could have gone either way. But I didn't because I think Obama a fraud, disingenuous, and divisive. I don't think him a progressive. Cues from the top? What does that mean?

    And while you have been gone, this blog has grown by leaps and bounds. Wonder why?  

    [ Parent ]

    Everyone has to line up (none / 0) (#73)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:25:59 AM EST
    behind Obama because Obama supporters keep telling us so.

    Meanwhile, Obama supporters are free to trash Hillary Clinton in the most Republican ways imaginable.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh Gawd (none / 0) (#156)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:46:16 AM EST
    HuffPo is nothing more than super-market tabloid trash these days.

    [ Parent ]
    How is this, (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by TN Dem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:26:58 AM EST
    Hillary's response to Obama's speech, helpful in your argument that she is not concerned enough to 'stick up for a fellow democrat'?

    "I did not have a chance to see or to read yet Sen. Obama's speech. But I'm very glad that he gave it. It's an important topic. Issues of race and gender in America have been complicated throughout our history, and they are complicated in this primary campaign.

    "There have been detours and pitfalls along the way. But we should remember that this is an historic moment for the Democratic Party, and for our country. We will be nominating the first African-American or woman for the Presidency of the United States, and that is something that all Americans can and should celebrate."



    [ Parent ]
    Hillary did try to defend Obama (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:43:54 AM EST
    on 60 Minutes, and look what it got her. The Obama people have made their bed with this one, sorry. Instead of meeting her half way, they chose to use the opportunity to rip her even more. They've turned "As far as I know" into a catch phrase to describe Hillary's duplicitousness, so it's a little late for them to worry about who's defending who. Add to that Obama himself perpetuating the Drudge smear against Hillary, and I wouldn't blame her if she's taking some satisfaction in the whole Wright controversy.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD's (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:50:18 AM EST
    An Obama supporter.

    Albeit self-described "tepid Obama supporter".


    [ Parent ]

    A critical Obama supporter. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:04:08 AM EST
    As opposed to an uncritical supporter.

    I can find uncritical supporters of every candidate elsewhere.  If that's what I wanted, I wouldn't be here.

    [ Parent ]

    With friends like BTD (none / 0) (#22)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:22:16 AM EST
    Obama doesn't need enemies.  BTD posts far more attack posts than support posts of Obama.  Even though he claims to be a supporter of Obama, his words are often more pro-Clinton than Jeralyn's, imo.

    [ Parent ]
    If you want (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:24:30 AM EST
    unquestioning and uncritical support of Obama,
    I can recommend some blogs to you.
    However, I don't think that will help get Obama elected.

    [ Parent ]
    I was just thinking (none / 0) (#24)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:29:07 AM EST
    that a "supporter" would tend to post more support than criticism.  Armando is more than free to have his own opinions, but they seem to line up more with Jerome Armongstrong than kos.

    [ Parent ]
    hmmm (none / 0) (#26)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:37:14 AM EST
    I prefer BTD's willingness to see problems and faults in his chosen candidate than Kos' fervent, barely critical support.

    Kos's declared mission is To Get Democrats Elected, so it should be expected that he'll go all cheerleaderish.  

    BTD hasn't made such a mission statement to my knowledge, so I have no such expectations of him.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:53:38 AM EST
    BTD has criticized both candidates and he is not a "fan" of either one. If kos has had one single non derisive thing to say about Hillary Clinton in the last couple of months, I've missed it.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah this is the place (none / 0) (#98)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:47:25 AM EST
    for unquestioning and uncritical support of Clinton, which likewise won't help her get elected.

      I don't think there is anyplace where open and honest dialogue about the strengths and weaknesses of both is welcome.

    [ Parent ]

    i think critical discussion upsets you. (none / 0) (#29)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:09:21 AM EST
    well there are places where there is no criticism, but here it is balanced. you know like the real world or more like it.

    [ Parent ]
    Your screen name is a dig (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dancing Bear on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:59:08 AM EST
    so expecting to find any unbiased content in your posts or responses is laughable. Now you are trying to tell the moderator what opinion he should have and how he should write about it.

    Perhaps you need to put the effort into starting your own site where you can control how people think about things rather than criticize the people who spend many hours taking care of this one so we all have a place to go.

    The topic was about the speech.  I haven't seen much "topic" in your conversation. Just criticism of this site. There are many other places to hear what you want to hear.  This one is for facts and truth.

    Thanks for the 1 rating. I hope you at least read what I wrote rather than just rating it a 1.  But, I highly doubt it.

    [ Parent ]

    You may just be disappointed (none / 0) (#25)
    by felizarte on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:34:18 AM EST
    to find out that the whole blogosphere has not gone ga-ga over Ob ama.  I am voting for Clinton but not Obama.  

    [ Parent ]
    i respectfully disagree with (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:52:11 AM EST
    his assessment of "groundbreaking," or "positive".

    I would have agreed if he had said it was a fair assessment of the state of race relations in the US but its most important function is that it changes the media slant on his relation to Jeremiah Wright.

    Everyone should READ the speech, not listen to it.  The speech doesn't read nearly as well as it plays.
    I had a great time listening to the speech as he is a brilliant speaker.  I had even more fun breaking the speech down and comparing to other speeches.

    Ranking three speeches...

    1.  "I Have a Dream
    2.  "What to the slave is Fourth of July"
    3.  "I Have Been on the Mountaintop"

    "A More Perfect Union" is not in the top 10 of speeches concerning racial issues.

    The speech reads weakly. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:58:34 AM EST
    I didn't listen.  I read it instead.  It's too much a patchwork - as if he wanted to defend himself and Wright, try to explain the racial/cultural divides, make some attempt to address the divides and then attempt to wrap the whole thing up in a stump speech.

    In a year or two, I wonder what we will think of that speech.  Will it hold up?

    [ Parent ]

    interesting (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:18:42 AM EST
    I thought it read better than he delivered it when I finally listened to it.

    [ Parent ]
    I only read the speech (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:26:50 AM EST
    I'm in China, and my connection is not so great. Plus the Chinese govt. is blocking YouTube, gee I wonder why. I realized reading it that it was a patchwork of sorts; I had heard the Ashley story before (I think?).

    I found it extremely moving, very thoughtful, and quite direct. I don't quite have the same reaction that many have expressed regarding the unfairness of the "equivalence" drawn between his grandmother and Wright, or Wright and Ferraro. I simply took that as  his covering parts of the spectrum of ways in which people react to race and the race issue in our society.

    Of course it is a historic speech, if only because of context. Obama's speech is not in the same league as MLK's speeches you mention - but it was trying to accomplish something very different (and nothing wrong with that, it was appropriate to its context). This was not a time for soaring biblical allegory, but for the direct and prosaic.

    This whole episode has me feeling sick. I am a Hillary supporter through and through. But I don't want this to be nail in the coffin of Obama's candidacy. It's tragic, and the consequences are potentially dire. What a kick in the teeth to the African American community in this country. At the same time I fully agree with the notion that Obama is still too inexperienced, and this episode underscores that. But ultimately, I fear that a rejection of Obama on these grounds will (rightly) be read as White America showing its color.

    For the record, I'd place MLK's "I have been to the Mountaintop" in first place. Gives me chills.

    [ Parent ]

    I appreciate your thoughts (none / 0) (#149)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:40:39 AM EST
    and share some of them.  
    but
    we should not forget that just because 80% of the AA community is voting for Obama it does not mean they hate Hillary of would not vote for her.
    the Clinton have generations of history with the AA community.
    the split is being overblown.  the world (or the democratic party) will not end if Obama is not the nominee.
    in spite of what you read at the Dreary Kos.


    [ Parent ]
    I truly hope you are right (none / 0) (#166)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:52:58 AM EST
    and I completely agree with your assessment of AA support for Hillary (and Bill). By "kick in the teeth" I was thinking more of how a rejection of Obama on these grounds would be felt as a rejection of Black culture, the Black church, and even of the right of African Americans to even feel angry about historical atrocities committed by White America against them, and of the USA's unjust, malevolent policies towards other parts of the world.

    [ Parent ]
    sadly I think (none / 0) (#174)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:00:57 AM EST
    you are right.
    I wish he could have been defeated based on his views on healthcare and several other areas where I strongly disagree with him.
    this is unfortunate.  this is ugly.
    it is not our doing.  as my mother used to say "he buttered his bread now he has to sleep in it"
    ironicly, for the record, I dont think he feel this way at all.  I think he joined that church for political reasons and may go down, as some journo said, for things he only pretended to be.

    [ Parent ]
    buttered bread (none / 0) (#185)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:12:02 AM EST
    I think you're right re: joining the church for political reasons. I don't have a problem with that,  generally speaking, though in this instance it's a problem.

    LOL you're mom. I had an aunt who always would say things like "If your grandfather was alive he'd be spinning in his grave!" or "We'll burn that bridge when we come to it."

    [ Parent ]

    yeah (none / 0) (#192)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:20:41 AM EST
    some of the time it was even intentional

    [ Parent ]
    ok (none / 0) (#191)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:19:59 AM EST
    lets talk about pragmatism.
    the AA vote is important.  all votes are important but the states with the largest populations are southern states we will not win.  even if Obama is the candidate.
    and contrary to what the MSM tells you many in the AA community will vote for Hillary.  many already are.
    as far as this statement:

    If he wins they will come out in force sufficient to overcome any whites who were turned against Obama over this.

    the last time I looked they were about 12% of the population.
    I am now prepared for hateful racebaiting indignant flames for saying this but you wanted pragmatism and there it is.

    [ Parent ]

    Am I the only one (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:05:21 AM EST
    who found his speech blah and repetitive, particularly how he ended it?  He ended it the same way, when he repeated the "Ashley" story verbatim from his MLK Day speech in Atlanta. :\

    I would have given it higher marks. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:14:24 AM EST
    If he had left the "Ashley" story off.

    That just seemed like blatant pandering to me AND he had already used it in another well publicized speech.

    [ Parent ]

    I Would Have Given It Higher Remarks (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:59:42 AM EST
    if he had left Grandma and Gerry out of it. If my grandson ever went out in public and aired any of my statements in a negative light for his own personal gain, he would never hear the last of it.

    [ Parent ]
    Definitely agree MO Blue (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by nashville on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:37:18 AM EST
    Surely in his lifetime he could have found a different example without disparaging his grandmother

    [ Parent ]
    re: his grandmother (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:44:01 AM EST
    I think what Obama was trying to do was get his listeners to think of people in their own families, people they love and view as complex individuals, who at times harbor sentiments that reflect and aggravate racial divisions.

    While reading the speech I was reminded of the many Christmas dinners, year after year after year, with my eldest brother inevitably making some snide racist remark or joke about blacks, or Jews, or Mexicans, etc. I've called him out on it before, numerous times, but I don't denounce him right then and there and threaten to end all ties with him forever, or until he repents. Partly that's because I don't want to humiliate him in front of his kids. But also I know my brother to be a very complex person, generally a good person, and with his own wounds and resentments. Again, it's not that I don't  chide him or speak my mind; I just try to find ways to do it that don't completely end our relationship (and we've gone months without speaking at times).

    I buy Obama's explanation regarding why he never abandoned his church, or Wright. I think that we've only seen snippets of Wright, and not the whole person. And I believe that he knows Wright to be more than the sum of the few minutes I managed to catch on the web.

    So, I think Obama has shown poor political judgment in this instance, but not necessarily poor interpersonal or ethical judgment.

    [ Parent ]

    Worse, he conflated his own history (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:32:01 AM EST
    if the anecdote he related in his book is considered the genesis of the "grandmother" remarks.

    In Dreams of My Father, he relates an incident where his grandmother, who took the bus to her job, was confronted by a man begging for money.  He was a black man.  She gave him a dollar, but he wanted more.  He got in her face - it scared her.  The bus came, but she related to her husband and grandson that she was afraid that if the bus had not come just then, the man might have hit her.  She doesn't tell "Barry" that the man was black, but his grandfather does.  They were embarrassed and angry about all of the implications, and Barry later gets some counseling on it from a family friend - who says his grandmother is right to be afraid, because she knows that black people have a reason to hate.

    If Wright is Obama's "crazy uncle," then I suppose we're supposed to think the woman who cared for him for many years is his "crazy grandmother," which is just so cruel.

    Who is this man?  Can we believe anything he has written, anything he relates about his life?

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:29:14 AM EST
    If he wanted to talk about his relationship with Rev Wright, great.  I think it would have been more effective if he had left out the distractions.

    Personally, I think Obama is showing a blind spot for black religious leaders.  

    Something like:  These are good men who have done a lot for their communities.  Sure they have some flaws, but shouldn't the good they do more than make up for a few failures?

    When you get up on the national stage and enter the full glare of the media scrutiny, you drag everyone else up there with you.  It's probably not fair, as Obama said about the way the media treated Clinton, but that's the way it is.

    [ Parent ]

    It was so long I did not read the whole thing (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:50:03 AM EST
    but I thought it was much better than many of his speeches; in particular, much better than his policy speeches, where the litany of platitudes is soporific.

    [ Parent ]
    "Da Speech" (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by pluege on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:07:55 AM EST
    Obama's speech did a great job convincing the already convinced Obama fans what a great candidate their favorite candidate is. For everyone else "the speech" only highlights that he has a problem.

    It is actually getting worse (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by facta non verba on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:10:42 AM EST
    because it is still getting played. Only 2 in 3 have have yet heard of the Wright comments. When the other 33% do, it has to be devastating to Obama. The polls taken yesterday show Hillary gaining even more steam nationally. 49 to 42 edge for Hillary now in Rasmussen.

    Obama will likely keep his "base" but conservative-minded independents, blue collar Democrats, Catholics, Hispanics are gone. He has not a prayer with these.

    Can you just imagine the republicans (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by felizarte on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:28:48 AM EST
    coming out with an ad--a split screen showing Pastor Wright saying , "God Bless America? No, no, no:  God Damn America!" Then just the Obama clip saying, "I can no more disown him than disowning the black community . . . "

    I agree:  this will be a growing problem for him.  

    [ Parent ]

    Those Types Of 527 Ads Will Be (none / 0) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:30:58 AM EST
    running non stop in the GE. Clips of the 9/11 video will be played in NY and Wright's views on Israel will be played in areas where they will do the most damage also.

    [ Parent ]
    And another 527 can (none / 0) (#37)
    by independent voter on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:35:53 AM EST
    run clips of Hagee ad nauseum. And we can spend the whole time focusing on what nutty thing the SUPPORTERS of the candidates said, rather than the issues that are important to this country.

    [ Parent ]
    To my knowledge (none / 0) (#39)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:40:14 AM EST
    McCain is not a member of Hagee's church, so your example doesn't work.


    [ Parent ]
    To my knowledge McCain (none / 0) (#75)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:28:25 AM EST
    hasn't repudiated Hagee either. Further, he once stated Falwell and Robertson were agents of intolerance, recently he flip flopped on that.

    If we are going to have a de facto religious test for office, lets apply the pernicious standard evenly.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    If McCain had been a member (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:37:11 AM EST
    of any of their churches for 20 years, and given them over 20 thousand dollars, I would agree with you, Molly.

    As it is, I respectfully disagree.

    [ Parent ]

    I understand your point (none / 0) (#92)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:43:22 AM EST
    but you should at least factor in the flip flop. A hit video could be done in this sequence. McCain- agent of intolerance- Falwell and Robertson on 9/11 and Katrina- McCain no they are not agent's of intolerance. What changed the straight talk? The desire for the GOP nomination. McCain, more of the same.

    You could do it under 3 minutes.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Good suggestion for a 527 (none / 0) (#118)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:05:56 AM EST
    no matter which Dem gets the nom.
    I bow to your talent, Miss Molly.  :)

    [ Parent ]
    I wish I had the skills or the time to do it (none / 0) (#122)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:10:27 AM EST
    but I don't. If you think it a good idea, steal the idea and give it to someone with the skills.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    True (none / 0) (#123)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:11:56 AM EST
    But moderates and independents already know that Republicans are in bed with crazy evangelicals.  It's a little more shocking when a Democrat has his personal pastor making such outrageous statements. A 527 with this info will be much more effective against Obama than against McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    race speech only made it worse for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by pluege on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:50:51 AM EST
    responding to "the Wright situation" with a speech about race instead of complete disavowal only conveys that Obama is sympathetic to what Wright has said and done. It looks as if Obama is justifying Wright's behavior only making it worse for Obama.

    Wright may be justified; Obama's speech may be intellectually terrific, but none of that matters - perceptions do and the speech only hurts Obama in perceptions of those not already convinced of Obama's magnificence.

    Rock and a hard place. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:01:59 AM EST
    A disavowal would have hurt Obama's chances with African Americans AND made it look like he would cave every time he was attacked.  (losing the black vote)

    Refusing to distance himself would have hurt his Unity theme.  (losing the white and independent vote)

    Obama needs all of those voters to pull this off.  

    [ Parent ]

    This is what I suspect. If you ask: (none / 0) (#49)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:53:37 AM EST
    did Obama defend Wright or condemn him, the answer is the former. That is what matters, politically.

    [ Parent ]
    I have increasingly been unimpressed (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Dancing Bear on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:25:54 AM EST
    with speeches by all politicians because they are written by many people, discussed to death prior to being made, and altered to cover the most people so we get perplexingly mixed messages.

    Barack is eloquent and charismatic but I am seeing more of a screenwriter than a speech writer. "I walked up a hill" becomes "while I was atop Mt. Everest".

    "My white grandmother" hit me between the eyes.  If her color matters to him than why would it not matter to others? It's no different than her saying a "black guy tried to mug her".  When the color of the person matters as much to the story as the story does itself we have evidently not slipped into a comfortable world of racial harmony. I have black nieces and nephews but short of this line I have always just referred to them as my nieces and nephews. I don't use their color to make my point.

    I take huge exception to the criticism of BTD and his support of Barack.  Why can you not be critical of someone you support?  I am constantly.  I fight with myself over issues pertaining to my own candidate as does BTD.  

    It's called honest evaluation of character and if anything he is guilty of that. Is it wrong to take the blinders off? I thought the entire issue with Barack was that he doesn't step back and look at what his supporters espouse.

    This forum is about truth.  If it looks like the "Hillary show" it's because somebody has to get the truth out.

    I just watched another story about Hillary's White Hiouse schedule and the story was about what it isn't saying.  "Some 11,000 redactions have been made. What is she hiding'?  When the newscasters deliberately mislead somebody has to step up to the plate and correct the record.  That is TalkLeft.

    If others get too overzealous in the criticisms of either candidate both Jeralyn and BTD rightfully delete and warn.  You will not find that any other place. The flames are fanned because these bloghosters are more about hits and visits than about truth.  They want disharmony and controversy because it builds revenue for them.

    This is not a revenue based institution. It is a location of fact and truth.

    I will never vote for Barack.  I believe my vote should reflect my opinions and not just be a vote to keep the other one out. I have seen too many things I cannot get my heart and head around in regards to Barack.

    If I saw the same things in the candidate I support I would simply change my affiliations rather than justify things for the sake of winning. Nothing thus far has chipped away at my regard and esteem of the person I have opted to support.  But if stuff, ugly stuff came out I would just have fewer reasons to vote.  I wouldn't slam him in support of her alone. If I slam him is is because of his record and character.  Not just to support her.

    Let's not forget that his BLACK (none / 0) (#45)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:51:17 AM EST
    grandparents were virulent racists. They sent a letter to his white grandmother complaining that their black blood would be sullied by their son's marriage to a white woman.
    Funny how he didn't mention that in the speech.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd say its still too early to tell (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:38:57 AM EST
    but no-one wants to hear that. Not Obama supporters who want it over with, not Clinton supporters who want to say Obama is damaged goods.

    We will know in a few more days.

    My take is, if Obama manages to get elected it will go down as one of the great speeches. If he doesn't it will just be another in a long line of good political speeches. Long time readers of this site may remember early on I  wondered if Obama was the 2nd coming of Adlai, as opposed to Lincoln.

    Adlai could give a good speech too. No-one much remembers them today. Every thinking person voted for Adlai. Unfortunately it takes a majority to get elected.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"

    I think you're right (none / 0) (#89)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:42:02 AM EST
    Far too early to tell.  There's a lot of time until the next votes are taken, and the Wright videos may have an immediate but only short-lived impact.

    Obama's speech was very good I thought. I liked it more after hearing it a second time. I'm a Clinton supporter, but I don't want him to be damaged goods. I want him to be VP.

    [ Parent ]

    that ticket works for you, me and BTD. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:44:21 AM EST
    not sure about everyone else.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    it takes a majority to get elected (none / 0) (#99)
    by sancho on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:48:27 AM EST
    a point that many of the self-declared "thinking people" don't seem to get.

    [ Parent ]
    Adlai (none / 0) (#157)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:46:24 AM EST
    great comparison. "Every thinking person voted for Adlai."

    Did they have lattes in those days? I suppose they were "Ovaltine Democrats," or some such.

    [ Parent ]

    the problem with this idea (none / 0) (#158)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:46:30 AM EST
    is that it sounds really good but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

    Suggesting Every thinking person voted for Adlai is saying that the majority of voters, who in the end voted not once but twice for Dwight D. Eisenhower were not thinking.

    Not only are you dissing Eisenhower's voters, you are casting a notion that Eisenhower was less worthy.

    While I assume that were I eligible to vote back then that I would have voted for Stevenson, Eisenhower proved to be a most reasonable steward on many things including enforcing school integration in Little Rock and his prescient warnings about the military industrial complex.

    Eisenhower was a respected war hero and perhaps some of the 1950's election is ultimately to be replayed here in 2008. As for intellectual comparisons...America doesn't necessarily prize intellect, how else can you account for GWB's votes?

    Indeed we may know more in a few days but we may not. It may take a barrage of 527 ads during the general election to frame the issue in ways that the main stream media won't allow because their desire to see HRC eliminated trumps everything else...witness ABC's first examination of HRC's White House logs. The 24 hour news cycle is just one Brittany melt down away from complete distraction.

    [ Parent ]

    Irony (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:04:39 AM EST
    Perhaps you are not familiar with this:

    During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai E Stevenson 'Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!'

    Stevenson called back 'That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!'



    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    I think Molly was being ironic (none / 0) (#172)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:59:12 AM EST
    Like, Obama's support draws hugely from the creative class, and the only people supporting Clinton are low-information blue collar white ethnics with little education. And post-menopausal women, who as we all know don't think, they just react to hot flashes.

    [ Parent ]
    How did Obama not distance himself from Wright? (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:52:44 AM EST
    He called him a crazy uncle, said he comletely disagrees with what Wright said, said his remarks came from bitterness, said if he knew what Wright was saying he would have left the church (when he was still peddling the story that he didn't know about Wright's views), and had him leave the campaign. And now I see people praising him for not throwing Wright underr the bus. The only thing he didn't do was physically throw the man under a bus.

    Saying he won't turn his back on Wright is diingenuous. No one demanded that he never speak to him again. He made the same moves that both campaigns have made in these situations. I don't recall Hillary saying she'll never have anything to do with Ferraro or Billy Shaheen ever again.

    But I suppose I should just get used to people heaping praise on Obama for getting up in the morning. I'd be able to appreciate the speech a lot more if his followers didn't try to make it so much more than it is. I didn't realize courage is defined as being dragged kicking and screaming to a podium to address an issue that you've been forced to confront.

    A couple of problems. He said he understands (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:56:18 AM EST
    why Wright is crazy (to paraphrase).
    So why did he stay at the church? There's no good answer for that.
    Also, not mentioning Wright's dangerous delusion on AIDS, or his extremely nasty attack on Hillary---that's no good.
    The problem with Wright is NOT race. That's only what Obama wants you to think.

    [ Parent ]
    The Hillary comment (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by leis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:19:59 AM EST
    was beyond the pale. How does that have anything to do with preaching? But it was the same comment made by Michelle Obama in a speech "How can you run a country when you can't even run your family" Absolutely unconscionable. But Hillary is supposed to defend these fine fellow Democrats?

    [ Parent ]
    I think she will defend him (5.00 / 1) (#105)